A Defense Of Homosexuality By John Corvino

Eric Tseng

Class

Professor

October 1 2015

The essay, Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality by John Corvino addresses a topic that has long been controversial for more years than people can count. This topic, like a never-stopping debate, often brings various opinions onto the table, including religious morals, human future and procreation. Homosexuality has been seen as a serious sin through many people’s eyes and is often accused by others of being “immoral” and “unnatural” (Corvino). People often have a hard time accepting couples who practice relationship with the same sex. In the article, Corvino rejects the idea that homosexual sex is unnatural and immoral. He defended for his gay friend’s rights throughtout

He thinks that there are many good reasons for Tommy and Jim to have sex. First, they are in a relationship. This one is a simple thinking. A lot of staticits have proven that there are many benefits of a healthy sexual relationship for couples who are in love. Second, the no-brainer answer, “sex is pleasurable.” (210). Corvino thinks that sex is even “much more than that: a sexual relationship can unite two people in a way that virtually nothing else can. It can be an avenue of growth, of communication, and of lasting interpersonal fulfillment” (210). He states that these reasons listed above are exactly why heterosexual couples have sex, too, even when they don’t plan on having children, don’t want children yet, or are past the child-bearing age. So if Tommy and Jim having sex is immoral, then there must be some “better” reason for Tommy and Jim to not have

He believes that a lot of thing that people value in life, such as clothing and medicine, “are unnatural in some sense” (211). Yet, no one suggests those being immoral. On the other hand, disease and death, for example, “are ‘natural’ in the sense that they occur ‘in nature’” (211). So being unusual isn’t enough to be called as immoral. The arguements of abnormal, offensive or disguesting do not make things “unnatural” either because there are activities such as eating snails or cleaning toilets that disguest people but aren’t listed as immoral. Moreover, arguements such as animal practice and moral innation do not label homoseuality unnatural because after all, what is normal can't in any way, shape or form be characterized. By the end of this section, he concluded that “homosexuality is either perfectly natural or, if unnatural, is not unnatural in a way that makes it immoral”